Hi Eric, Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849).
We will now ask IANA to make their updates. Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Feb 26, 2026, at 12:48 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > I approve contingent on the break in issue #1308 being fixed. > > -Ekr > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 11:37 AM Madison Church > <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, Kazuho, Nick, > > Thank you for your replies. We have marked your final approvals on the AUTH48 > status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). Once we receive > approval from Eric, we will ask IANA to complete their updates. > > Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > On Feb 25, 2026, at 12:21 PM, Christopher Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I approve publication. > > > > Best, > > Chris > > > >> On Feb 24, 2026, at 5:11 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Authors, > >> > >> Eric - Thank you for your reply. We have reverted all [RFC9846] citations > >> back to [RFC8446] per your response. Aside from the issue filed on GitHub > >> for this document (https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1308), we > >> believe there are no outstanding items that require further review. While > >> this issue is being worked on, we can still note formatting approvals (and > >> therefore final approvals) for this document. As requested, we will not > >> proceed with publication until issue #1308 is resolved. > >> > >> All - Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and > >> let us know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for > >> publication. While this is your approval of the XML and its outputs, we > >> consider this your final assent that the document is ready for > >> publication. To request changes or approve your RFC for publication, > >> please reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties > >> CCed on this message need to see your approval. > >> > >> Please note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this point > >> on. > >> > >> XML file: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml > >> > >> Output files: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >> > >> Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes): > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > >> > >> Comprehensive diff file of the text: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >> > >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >> > >> Once all approvals are received, we will proceed with IANA updates. > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> Madison Church > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >>> On Feb 21, 2026, at 11:05 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 2:35 PM Madison Church > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hello Authors, > >>> > >>> Now that we have all necessary content approvals, we have converted the > >>> kramdown-rfc file to RFCXML. We made some additional formatting changes > >>> in the XML file, including reference updates. > >>> > >>> We also have additional comments for your review: > >>> > >>> 1) Upon completing the XML conversion, we came across a bug in the > >>> updated WHATWG-IPV4 reference, specifically in the TXT output. We have > >>> filed an issue with the Tools Team; see > >>> https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1308 for further > >>> clarification. > >>> > >>> This needs to be fixed before publication. > >>> > >>> > >>> 2) We have updated RFCs 8446 and 8447 to RFC-to-be-9846 and RFC 9847 per > >>> Sean Turner’s mail from 2 December 2025. With these reference updates, > >>> please review the updated files and let us know if any updates are needed > >>> to the current in-text citations for these RFCs. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure this is advisable. The net impact is that it puts these > >>> documents behind RFC 9846. I recognize that it's in Auth48, but we're > >>> working through some issues, so it's probably not going to be like next > >>> week. > >>> > >>> -Ekr > >>> > >>> > >>> Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let us > >>> know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for > >>> publication. While this is your approval of the XML and its outputs, we > >>> consider this your final assent that the document is ready for > >>> publication. To request changes or approve your RFC for publication, > >>> please reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties > >>> CCed on this message need to see your approval. > >>> > >>> Please note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this > >>> point on. > >>> > >>> XML file: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml > >>> > >>> Output files: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>> > >>> Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes): > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > >>> side) > >>> > >>> Comprehensive diff file of the text: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>> > >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >>> > >>> Thank you! > >>> > >>> Madison Church > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>>>> On Feb 19, 2026, at 7:30 PM, Kazuho Oku <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for all the changes. I approve. > >>>> > >>>> 2026年2月19日(木) 5:54 Madison Church <[email protected]>: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Authors, > >>>>> > >>>>> We have noted approvals for Paul, Eric, and Chris on the AUTH48 status > >>>>> page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). Once we receive > >>>>> Kazuho’s approval for the document’s content, we will move forward with > >>>>> the RFCXML conversion and formatting updates. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you! > >>>>> Madison Church > >>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Feb 18, 2026, at 2:39 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ah thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Approved > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Paul > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 1:48 PM Sandy Ginoza > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Paul, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is also my mistake - apologies for the confusion! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review the diffs in this file and let us know if you approve: > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849v4fixed-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Sandy Ginoza > >>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2026, at 10:29 AM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 6:38 PM Sandy Ginoza > >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Eric, Paul*, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you for your review and the updated .md file. The current > >>>>>>> files are available here: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Diffs of the most recent updates: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > >>>>>>> side) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> AUTH48 diffs: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > >>>>>>> by side) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Comprehensive diffs: > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Paul, please review the diffs of the most recent updates and let us > >>>>>>> know if you approve. > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastdiff.html > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > >>>>>>> side) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am a bit confused here as the diff contains questions from you to > >>>>>>> us, and I am not sure if I and/or authors are still > >>>>>>> supposed to choose an option. That is, you seem to be asking more > >>>>>>> than just approval from me? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Otherwise, the changes looks fine to me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Paul > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Authors, please let us know if any additional updates are needed or > >>>>>>> if you approve the RFC for publication. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>> Sandy Ginoza > >>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2026, at 10:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please find an updated markdown file at: > >>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/baf67ab50fb5238eab07d7e3f081aec4495c4742/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 8:14 AM Christopher Wood > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> I approve publication of the latest document. Thanks for the work, > >>>>>>>> all. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Chris > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Feb 11, 2026, at 4:25 PM, Madison Church > >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Kazuho, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! We have updated our files to match your > >>>>>>>>> name preference for consistency with other RFCs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For the change regarding HpkeKeyConfig, we will wait for additional > >>>>>>>>> reviews/comments. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Markdown file: > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html (comprehensive > >>>>>>>>> diff) > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by > >>>>>>>>> side) > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html (diff > >>>>>>>>> showing AUTH48 changes) > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > >>>>>>>>> by side) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Markdown diffs: > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2026, at 12:39 AM, Kazuho Oku <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hello Madison, authors, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for pushing the draft forward. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have read through the updated markdown and I would like to > >>>>>>>>>> request two nits. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I've separately filed a PR > >>>>>>>>>> (https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/672), but the > >>>>>>>>>> nits > >>>>>>>>>> are: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> # Section 5 and Section 6.1: Incorrect references to properties of > >>>>>>>>>> HpkeKeyConfig > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> `cipher_suites`, `kem_id`, `public_key` are members of > >>>>>>>>>> `HpkeKeyConfig`, and therefore it would be correct to refer to > >>>>>>>>>> them as > >>>>>>>>>> `ECHConfigContents.key_config.~`. However, `key_config` is missing. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> IMO this is editorial, however it is not a grammatical error, and > >>>>>>>>>> therefore would appreciate reviews from other authors. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> # Update my name to use Kanji > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This would make the representation consistent with other RFCs that > >>>>>>>>>> I coauthored. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> For the ease of the review, the diff file against the TXT version > >>>>>>>>>> is attached. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2026年2月4日(水) 6:32 Madison Church <[email protected]>: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the updated markdown file! Updated files are listed > >>>>>>>>>>> below. We will wait to hear from you once you’ve completed your > >>>>>>>>>>> top-to-bottom read. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the > >>>>>>>>>>> two-part approval process), see > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Markdown file: > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side by > >>>>>>>>>>> side) > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html (diff > >>>>>>>>>>> showing AUTH48 changes) > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Markdown diffs: > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2026, at 2:17 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is an updated markdown file with the outstanding PRs. The > >>>>>>>>>>>> technical ones > >>>>>>>>>>>> were reviewed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/18715d4e44626db8f3460442e363ede9526277b0/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I still need to do my top-to-bottom read. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 11:55 AM Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Authors, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is another friendly weekly reminder that we await content > >>>>>>>>>>>> approvals from Christopher, Kazuho, and Eric before moving along > >>>>>>>>>>>> with formatting updates for this document. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2026, at 2:37 PM, Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Authors, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await content > >>>>>>>>>>>>> approvals from Christopher, Kazuho, and Eric before moving > >>>>>>>>>>>>> along with formatting updates for this document. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2026, at 6:37 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 2:37 PM Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul - We have noted your approvals for the two proposed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical changes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nick - Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the contents of this document on the AUTH48 status page > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and implemented your requested updates. The diff file was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incredibly helpful! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will wait for confirmation to implement the technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will implement the technical changes in my copy. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the contents of the document carefully. Contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us with any further updates or with your approval of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> document’s contents in its current form. Once we receive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> approvals from Christopher, Kazuho, and Eric, we will move > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward with formatting updates. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the two-part approval process), see > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown file: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html (side > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (diff showing AUTH48 changes) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown diffs: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2026, at 9:42 AM, Nick Sullivan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello RFC Production Center, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I reviewed the currently posted AUTH48 text for RFC-to-be 9849 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (rfc9849.txt on the RFC Editor authors page). Below are a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small set of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining editorial issues. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two items that are technically non-editorial are already > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being handled > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the TLS WG GitHub repository (issues 656 and 665 / > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open PRs). To avoid duplication, I am not requesting those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here or requesting any expansion of RFC number placeholders > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example RFCYYY1) in this note. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A) Typos and minor editorial fixes (no intended technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 5.1 (Encoding the ClientHelloInner) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Replace “structured defined” with “structure defined”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 6.1 (Offering ECH) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Capitalization: “Instead, It MUST …” -> “Instead, it MUST > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 7 (Server Behavior introduction) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Consistency: “back-end server” -> “backend server”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 10.8 (Cookies) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Insert missing space: “unencrypted.This” -> “unencrypted. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 11.3 (ECH Configuration Extension Registry) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Fix grammar in the “Recommended” field description and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicated wording (“value with a value of”). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposed patch (unified diff against the currently posted > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfc9849.txt; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes items already covered by issues 656 and 665; no RFC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> placeholder expansions) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - structured defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC9147]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This does not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + structure defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC9147]. This > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ClientHelloInner.random. Instead, It MUST > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate a fresh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ClientHelloInner.random. Instead, it MUST > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate a fresh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - the client-facing server or as the back-end server. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depending on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + the client-facing server or as the backend server. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depending on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1706,7 +1706,7 @@ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - unencrypted.This means differences in cookies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between backend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + unencrypted. This means differences in cookies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between backend > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2114,13 +2114,12 @@ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Recommended: A "Y" or "N" value indicating if the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension is TLS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WG recommends that the extension be supported. This > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> column is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - assigned a value of "N" unless explicitly requested. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - value with a value of "Y" requires Standards Action > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [RFC8126]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Recommended: A "Y" or "N" value indicating if the TLS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Working Group > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + recommends that the extension be supported. This > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> column is assigned a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + value of "N" unless explicitly requested. Adding a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of "Y" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + requires Standards Action [RFC8126]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub PR: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/671/files > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With these changes, the publication is approved by me. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nick Sullivan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 12:28 PM Nick Sullivan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Madison, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies for the delay, I was intending to do this over the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new year but didn't get to it. I'll review by end of week. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nick > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:31 AM Paul Wouters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approved (via email and at the PRs listed) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:49 PM Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Authors, *Paul, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Happy new year! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from you regarding the readiness of this document’s > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contents before moving forward with formatting updates. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Paul - As responsible AD for this document, please review > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes below and let us know if you approve: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/668 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/667 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status page, see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 12:46 PM, Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the followup! We have updated the AUTH48 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we will wait to hear from you once you complete your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final content review. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 12:33 PM, Eric Rescorla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW I think Paul actually just approved this one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, not the overall RFC. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have merged this markdown file into the version on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub. There are two pending > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes that are technically not just editorial, though > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think obvious and need Paul's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/668 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/667 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In parallel, I will also need to give it a final > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-to-bottom read, which I hope to do in the next > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week or so. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:42 AM Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:27 AM, Paul Wouters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:06, Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Authors, *Paul, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Paul - As responsible AD, please note that we await > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your approval of RFC YYY1 as an Informative Reference > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (changed from Normative to Informative). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approved > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors - This is a friendly reminder that we await > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approvals from each author prior to moving forward > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with formatting updates. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including the two-part approval process), see > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown file: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (diff showing AUTH48 changes) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown diffs: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2025, at 10:07 AM, Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, *Paul, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric - Thank you for your reply! We weren’t sure if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this was intentional, so thank you for clarifying. We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have moved RFC YYY1 to the Informative References > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Paul - As responsible AD, please let us know if you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approve RFC YYY1 as an Informative Reference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the contents of the document carefully. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contact us with any further updates or with your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval of the document’s contents in its current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form. We will await approvals from each author prior > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to moving forward with formatting updates. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including the two-part approval process), see > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown file: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (diff showing AUTH48 changes) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown diffs: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2025, at 4:38 PM, Eric Rescorla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Madison, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that the citation to RFCYYY1 should be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informative, not normative. I corrected that in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my version but I guess I forgot to flag it. Paul, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-authors, any objections? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 2:16 PM Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the updated markdown file! We have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorporated your edits into the document. Upon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further review, we have also updated the term > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Shared Mode" to follow the same pattern as "Split > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mode" (uppercase on first use and in titles, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lowercase otherwise). Please let us know any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections. Additionally, we will update the WHATWG > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference per our discussion during formatting. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from the updates mentioned, we have no further > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions/comments at this time. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the contents of the document > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carefully. Contact us with any further updates or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your approval of the document’s contents in its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current form. We will await approvals from each > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author prior to moving forward with formatting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including the two-part approval process), see > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown file: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (diff showing AUTH48 changes) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown diffs: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2025, at 7:12 PM, Eric Rescorla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is an updated markdown file with the fixed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> width adjustments. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/refs/heads/auth48/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 9:49 AM Eric Rescorla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 6:23 AM Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! Please see inline. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 1:38 PM, Eric Rescorla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Re the questions and comments: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I will send a revised file with the fixed width > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues fixed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noted! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * As I understand the WHATWG question, there are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two distinct issues (1) whether to reference a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit and (2) whether to reference fragments. I'm > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK with referencing a commit like this if that's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you agreed with WHATWG, but I read this text > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as saying not to reference fragments unless we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensure that the anchor is permanent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://whatwg.org/working-mode#anchors. Have we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done so for this one? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for clarifying. We are unsure if the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current anchor [1] is permanent, so we would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend not using it and using the more general > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one [2]. However, if any other authors put in a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request with WHATWG to make that anchor permanent, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please let us know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-ipv4-parser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are in agreement, then, thanks. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 6:58 AM Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Authors, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers to the followup questions/comments below > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your review of the document before continuing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the publication process. For details of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two-part approval process), see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2025, at 8:34 AM, Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! We have updated the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document as requested and have two followup items > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your review, which can be viewed in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AUTH48 thread below or in the updated markdown > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file marked with "rfced". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2025, at 10:33 PM, Eric Rescorla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Update: I fixed my affiliation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:23 PM Eric Rescorla > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. I am editing this in GitHub. I merged > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your proposed changes except > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for those I think are inadvisable, which I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverted. I answered your questions inline. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can find the latest markdown file here (also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/refs/heads/auth48/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Ekr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:53 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please resolve (as necessary) the following > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, which are also in the source file. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] References > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) Regarding [WHATWG-IPV4], this reference's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date is May 2021. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The URL provided resolves to a page with "Last > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Updated 12 May 2025". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that WHATWG provides "commit snapshots" of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their living standards and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are several commit snapshots from May > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021 with the latest being from 20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2021. For example: 20 May 2021 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://url.spec.whatwg.org/commit-snapshots/1b8b8c55eb4bed9f139c9a439fb1c1bf5566b619/#concept-ipv4-parser) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We recommend updating this reference to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most current version of the WHATWG > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Living Standard, replacing the URL with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more general URL to the standard > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://url.spec.whatwg.org/), and adding a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "commit snapshot" URL to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [WHATWG-IPV4] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHATWG, "URL - IPv4 Parser", WHATWG Living > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standard, May > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-ipv4-parser>. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EKR: Per MT, WHATWG has asked us not to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. We should leave > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this as-is and change the date to December 2025. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) For context, we reached out to WHATWG in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> September about a format for references to their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards (see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/meta/issues/363). The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed update below for this reference > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflects the approved format. It would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helpful for the RPC to know what WHATWG has > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked authors to not do so that we can reach out > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for clarification and update our recommended > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citation if necessary. With this in mind, let us > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know if any updates need to be made. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [WHATWG-IPV4] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHATWG, "URL - IPv4 Parser", WHATWG Living > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standard, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-ipv4-parser>. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commit snapshot: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://url.spec.whatwg.org/commit-snapshots/1b8b8c55eb4bed9f139c9a439fb1c1bf5566b619/#concept-ipv4-parser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the date, we don't recommend using a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future date for a reference as it doesn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect the date for a currently published work > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unless there is an anticipated update to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHATWG specification in December 2025). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d) FYI, RFCYYY1 (draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech) will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be updated during the XML stage. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms use fixed-width font > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistently. Please review these terms and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let us know how we should update > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or if there are any specific patterns that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be followed (e.g., > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed-width font used for field names, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variants, etc.). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept_confirmation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cipher_suite > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientHello > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientHelloInner > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientHelloOuter > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientHelloOuterAAD > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config_id > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECHClientHello > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECHConfig > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECHConfig.contents.public_name > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECHConfigContents > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECHConfigList > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EncodedClientHelloInner > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum_name_length > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outer > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> payload > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public_key > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ServerHello.random > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zeros > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EKR: Thanks. Fixed width should be used for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field names and other PDUs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I notice that some of these are regular words > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (zeros) so you have to determine from context > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it's referring to some protocol element > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or just to the concept "carries an encrypted > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> payload" versus "the payload field". Do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to take a cut at changing as many of these > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as make sense and then I can review, or would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you prefer I make the changes? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One question is what to do in definition lists. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My sense is that the list heds should be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-fixed-width but maybe you have a convention. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Thank you for offering to make changes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please feel free to attach an updated markdown > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file containing the changes for terms using > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed-width font. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For definition lists, we typically leave this up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the authors to determine how they would like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the terms to appear for consistency. For an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of terms in a definition list using a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed-width font, see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9623.html#section-5.1.1. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849.md > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (please refresh): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Markdown diffs: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48diff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9849-md-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9849. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will await approvals from each author prior > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to moving forward with formatting updates. For > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including the two-part approval process), see: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Kazuho Oku > >>>>>>>>>> <rfc9849.txt.kazuho.diff> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Kazuho Oku > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
